wow... 2 different boats... that doesn't look very good. I remember in 07 or 08 when I went to the boat show, the MC salesman told me that one of the many reasons MC was better than Malibu was the hull flex. He had me push on an Xstar on the side of the boat and it would not flex, then told me that any of the new malibu's over in the malibu booth would flex a little bit. I asked why that matters and he said you do not want ANY flex in the boat cuz it causes problems, cracking, rattles....etc.

Not sure whats up with those two MC's, but something doesn't seem right, and I do not see how it matters if it is on the ground/blocks or a trailer...

That certainly does not look good. I would not agree with whomever told u MC dont flex. All boats have some flex. Too rigid could also cause problems. There is certainly a limit though. The only reason i could think of as far as what the boat is sitting on is that boats are engineered to have support weather its the trailer or water. Placing it on stands and not properly supporting it could be bad but this video is really ugly.

Bullshart.
OK show of hands:
How many structural hull failures in mastercraft boats have you seen or even heard of, Time and age regardless?

These are plastic boats. Do i think most tow boats are built like shizat compared to a real offshore capable boat, IE: Intrepid / Yellowfin? Cape Horn etc? Yes, 100% absafrikenlutely and its true. I could break one in a weekend but I would be using it for a purpose outside its designers' intentions.
There is not a tow boat built to a standard I would accept, laminate and grid schedule-wise as being worth 1/2 its market price.

Bling only goes so far when you can no longer see land.

If you put that build quality, lack of and total disrespect for deck water management and poor quality shafting,and electrical in any offshore boat you would be bankrupt in 6 months.
However, in the wold of tow boats that must look the part and never take a real beating, and never see salt water then Mastercraft does as good a job as any other boat builder. Do that shake test to all the other ones and you will likely see similar results.
After all that I repeat the opening line.:
Has anyone ever broken a Mastercraft? Anyone? .... crickets.

Apples and oranges, these days tow boats are more like cars than what most people would call a boat.

it is hard to say how mc compares to other boats...hopefully someone can do the "push test" and post results....but i do agree that they are all makes are made like crap and are more bling than anything. and very overpriced new..

Boats expand/contract/grow with temperature changes daily. How do you think composite/fiberglass materials react being in 70 degree water while being exposed to 100 degree+ air? Then going back to 70 degree water and 60 degree air? A boat that doesn't flex at all would be of more concern to me.

1.) The floor stands are what, 3 point supports, 2 rear and 1 under the V towards the front? These boats are designed to be supported by a distributed load (pressure of the water) acting normal to the wetted surface...

2.) At what point on the water will you ever run into this scenario? The boat isnt designed for a situation where the rear is fixed, the front can "rock" on the support beneath the V.

Dont get me wrong, initially it is unnerving, but think about it further....i dont see it as a big issue.

1) boats sit on boat trailers with 2-4 bunk supports, and sometimes under the v towards the front... tiny area in relation to the "designed" area supported when on water. Not far off from how they are supported on blocks at boat shows.

2) everytime your boat is on the trailer or lift... see answer #1 for further.

Whoever goes to the next boat show, please do this test to all the boats.. this is very interesting.

Stop in at Redline and check out a model on the trailer. I doubt it'll be that bad. I'm pretty sure there'll be some degree of flex. Then compare to that SAN and report back.
Or are you just making sure before you pick up something with local service available?

A couple points:
1) The wobble is exacerbated by the fact that the boat is on a stand(s). This is not the operating environment for the boat. In the water, the fluid pressure on the hull provides a totally different support mode. While the stand does, somewhat, resemble the trailer, the reality is the trailer has a significantly high level of stiffness due to the steel. Further, in the real world there isnt really a force mechanism to load/test the hull like a strong guy reefin on the sidewall...
2) I am not shocked to see that wobble, nor would I be concerned. Especially with a quality name like MasterCraft. I would have no concerns over that boats structural integrity based on shaking it side to side on a stand.

i have yet to see/read an explanation of how compliance in the hull is a negative attribute.

this is the problem with our "sport". i put it in quotations because the experience of enjoying the outdoors on a perfectly flat piece of water has been complicated by the means to do so. with the man-made (and imperfect as perceived by our arm chair engineers) enhancers of our activities, the sport has become about the vessel.

look at the bazillionty threads about this wake vs that wake, this boat vs that boat, and the how to weight my boat retardation that overwhelms these forums. wakeboarding is the only discipline that minimizes that penalty of not learning how to ride because water is relatively soft.

1) boats sit on boat trailers with 2-4 bunk supports, and sometimes under the v towards the front... tiny area in relation to the "designed" area supported when on water. Not far off from how they are supported on blocks at boat shows.

2) everytime your boat is on the trailer or lift... see answer #1 for further.

Whoever goes to the next boat show, please do this test to all the boats.. this is very interesting.

2 to 4 bunks that are approximately 4+ feet long each, 3-4" wide, and flex ever so slightly to "hug" the hull are MUCH different than 3 rigid supports.... but, without any technical specifications, without seeing the supports on the boat in the actual video, without breaking out my old statics and mechanics of materials book, and without making more assumptions, I can't prove anything to anyone...

...I put my faith in the engineers working at MC, as well as all other manufacturers, who's job it is to design something safe that we all get to enjoy....

Why criticize a company for an attribute that is exhibited by their product in an environment in which it was not designed to perform? Go shake the tower while its sitting at the doc and see what happens. Go shake it on the trailer and see what happens.

i have yet to see/read an explanation of how compliance in the hull is a negative attribute.

this is the problem with our "sport". i put it in quotations because the experience of enjoying the outdoors on a perfectly flat piece of water has been complicated by the means to do so. with the man-made (and imperfect as perceived by our arm chair engineers) enhancers of our activities, the sport has become about the vessel.

look at the bazillionty threads about this wake vs that wake, this boat vs that boat, and the how to weight my boat retardation that overwhelms these forums. wakeboarding is the only discipline that minimizes that penalty of not learning how to ride because water is relatively soft.

pure douchebaggery.

I'm not following this very well. Unless you're saying that anyone involved in a sport towed by a vessel, and concerned about the suitability of the vessel is a dbag. If that's what you meant then I got it, though I wouldn't understand why you're posting here when you should be on a swimming forum.

So after watching that video I thought something was funny. look at a picture of how the rear deck is designed on an X-25. Its on hinges, of course it would move a little when the boat is shaking like this. On most boats those rear locker sun pads are just hinged to the side of the boat so when you shake the boat you wouldn't see them moving. Its funny how people come up with some of this stuff.

I'm not following this very well. Unless you're saying that anyone involved in a sport towed by a vessel, and concerned about the suitability of the vessel is a dbag. If that's what you meant then I got it, though I wouldn't understand why you're posting here when you should be on a swimming forum.

I didn't follow it very well either except to understand that we are dbags. I'm not sure I can confirm that though.

So after watching that video I thought something was funny. look at a picture of how the rear deck is designed on an X-25. Its on hinges, of course it would move a little when the boat is shaking like this. On most boats those rear locker sun pads are just hinged to the side of the boat so when you shake the boat you wouldn't see them moving. Its funny how people come up with some of this stuff.

Levi,

Good theory, but not so fast! Look at the 2nd video. The entire boat is flexing something awful. Look at the sway in the dash and the passenger seat The guy isn't shaking that hard either. I agree with you about the rear deck, but the sway in the hull (areas just referenced) is still disturbing.

My guess it's real flex cuz all of these hulls have shape like usual carton box and they have no any crossbars which will keep this shape with no flex. Even lower frame doing a bottom stiff but not exclude along axle swing of total deformation. On the water you can see easy how that work when crossing own wake under some angles and you will watch on the gap and the upper corner level of closed crosswalk windshield.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEkErF51Uxg

I'm not following this very well. Unless you're saying that anyone involved in a sport towed by a vessel, and concerned about the suitability of the vessel is a dbag. If that's what you meant then I got it, though I wouldn't understand why you're posting here when you should be on a swimming forum.

I think you put way to much thought into that post. I tried to read it, scratched my head and moved on! Chalked it up to someones drunk post!

As for the x-25 hatch that makes more sense knowing its design but still makes the boat look pretty weak.

I'm not following this very well. Unless you're saying that anyone involved in a sport towed by a vessel, and concerned about the suitability of the vessel is a dbag. If that's what you meant then I got it, though I wouldn't understand why you're posting here when you should be on a swimming forum.

All you guys complaining and being worried about this are just retards. Like stated before, if this were a real life issue while on the trailer or water, then none of the mfgs would be in business anymore. I personally have been out on boats with over 4k hours on them. Granted they have had a fair amount of engine work done but, the hulls have been sent through some serious torture tests with countless double and triple ups beig thrown their way and I have yet to see any issues at all

What Jason said.... This video is a dead horse. It was posted on WW last year or even earlier then that. When's the last time you've heard of a Mastercraft or any of the other brands for that matter have a major issue because of excessive flexing in the water. Spider cracks and gel coat issues maybe, but no this.

a video was posted showing a piece of fiberglass in the form of a boat hull flexing under load. it created a reaction that assigned that flex as a negative attribute. nowhere in the discussion did a nautical engineer opine whether or not flex is tolerable, and if so, to what degree . skyscrapers flex. the frames on our trucks that tow our boats flex. bicycle frames flex they are all engineered with some compliance to negotiate the environments in which they are used. one of the theories of contributing factors to the Titanic's rapid sinking was the fact that it did not flex enough,

whats my point? there is too much emphasis on what the "right" answer is for wakeboarding when it comes to the vessel being used. it seems that the wake scene has become a ford v chevy v doge pissing match, when in reality, all of them will do the job more than adequately. it seems that if you dont have brand x loaded with one billion lbs of ballast (per whatever the forums recommend) and 9 megawatts of stereo, then you cannot possibly be enjoying the experience. that is the douchebaggery of which i speak.

that being said, i own a 230 with 3k lbs of ballast plumbed in and 6k watts of stereo, so i am not immune. i have not had a more measurable amount of fun in or behind it than i did on my 2000 moomba outback, which proved to be the most trouble free of the last 5 boats i have owned. and out of all of them, i find the experience to be greatest behind my sea doo just board sliding flat water on my wakeskate in places where boats cant get...its akin to riding fresh powder in the backcountry vs riding groomers.. but i digress...time to go back to my swimming hole, hahaha.

Well, I'm an engineer and given how that boat is likely supported, that amount of flex looks about right. It would never flex like that on the water. The boat is likely being supported at three points and he's putting a huge torsional load on that hull. Thank goodness that fiberglass flexes as much as it does. If it was super rigid, it would either crack like crazy over every wave or it would weigh a million pounds. Pointless videos. Too bad Mastercraft has to deal with the negativity.

Well, I'm an engineer and given how that boat is likely supported, that amount of flex looks about right. It would never flex like that on the water. The boat is likely being supported at three points and he's putting a huge torsional load on that hull. Thank goodness that fiberglass flexes as much as it does. If it was super rigid, it would either crack like crazy over every wave or it would weigh a million pounds. Pointless videos. Too bad Mastercraft has to deal with the negativity.

Looks just about right??? That's a funny comment. Would it still look just about right if it were a bayliner?

Lets all remember this discussion next time a boat vs boat discussion comes up. Seems that too many times fanboys want to say that other boats are inferior for this reason or that, yet none of the major brands have had any history of hull failures. There is more than one way to build a quality boat and make it withstand what is needed for a wakeboard boat.

Well, I'm an engineer and given how that boat is likely supported, that amount of flex looks about right. It would never flex like that on the water.

I'm not agree. On the water if you have glass surface ofcourse yeah. But if boat does dubs or have wake from others boats.... during crossing wake will be produced much more power! Even single mass of tower will work more. Or are these boats not constructed for perform dubs or MC is the one boat at the lake always?

I'm not agree. On the water if you have glass surface ofcourse yeah. But if boat does dubs or have wake from others boats.... during crossing wake will be produced much more power! Even single mass of tower will work more. Or are these boats not constructed for perform dubs or MC is the one boat at the lake always?

Sorry to do this twice in one thread, but
What? I can't follow this. What do you mean by "Even single mass of tower will work more."? That's one of the things in this that makes no sense to me.

1) The three point suspension (I assume there are two blocks in the rear and one in the front) resulting in no torsional support. You would not see nearly the flex if these boats were on a trailer with 4-point suspension.

2) Most boats are open-sections* ( see description below) which are not stiff in the torsional directions.

I agree that I would prefer to see no flex but I don't see a structural problem with these boats.

* - To understand an open section vs a closed sections, consider a paper towel tube. If you grab both ends and twist there is very little deflection, this is a closed-section. Now if you make a cut along the length of the tub it becomes an open-section. Slight torsional loads on this tube result in large deflections.

Friends has 2011 X-45 shakes that bad on the water noticed it one day while holding it at the dock on a river with a little current. Never noticed it while driving and he has never had any issues with stress cracks so don't think it's really any think to worry about.

It makes no sense that a company would send two boats to a dealer to take to a boatshow with missing structural components. That's ridiculous.

i agree why in the world would the make a construct a boat with out the structual components...because im pretty sure no one will buy a boat that shakes like that...so it would be a waste of money for Mastercraft....there is obviously something mwrong with these boats

It makes no sense that a company would send two boats to a dealer to take to a boatshow with missing structural components. That's ridiculous.

It makes perfect sense. And it happens all the time. Every year, every boat builder is rushing to get the new stuff to the boat show to show off. It doesn't need to perform, or drive or even start. It just needs to look pretty enough to get orders.

The 2012 Xstar was the perfect example. The boat never even made it to production.

i agree why in the world would the make a construct a boat with out the structual components...because im pretty sure no one will buy a boat that shakes like that...so it would be a waste of money for Mastercraft....there is obviously something mwrong with these boats

I've never shaken a boat like that. It's usually not on my check list.

It makes perfect sense. And it happens all the time. Every year, every boat builder is rushing to get the new stuff to the boat show to show off. It doesn't need to perform, or drive or even start. It just needs to look pretty enough to get orders.

The 2012 Xstar was the perfect example. The boat never even made it to production.

Ask ANYONE who has ridden in an X-25 if they shake on the water or ride rough. The X-25 is an incredibly stable and smooth riding boat. There are NO hull issues. This thread needs to end. It's just an attempt to make MC look bad when in fact we all know there is NOTHING wrong with the best selling hull in the MC line up. I'd bet most of the people trashing it haven't even ride in or behind one.

I could understand if the issue was, hey, there were some tower supports left off, or the platform was not on the boat, or there was not time to get the amps installed, but to suggest that any manufacturer would completely build a boat, install an entire interior, install all bells, whistles and options, but not install an integral part of the superstructure of the internal hull, just to get a boat to a show, is going full retard. The entire freaking boat would have to be torn down to go back and put internal support pieces in place. I'm not buying it.

That being said, I could care less anyway. I bet if you were to go up to most boats and do what these guys did, they would flex to a degree. We could settle this if someone would just film themselves shaking an x25 at a boatshow this weekend...

Ask ANYONE who has ridden in an X-25 if they shake on the water or ride rough. The X-25 is an incredibly stable and smooth riding boat. There are NO hull issues. This thread needs to end. It's just an attempt to make MC look bad when in fact we all know there is NOTHING wrong with the best selling hull in the MC line up. I'd bet most of the people trashing it haven't even ride in or behind one.

I've spent almost 350 hours In them. There's a brutal amount of creaks and shakes the tower, glove box, and aluminum door walk way. The ride is good but it does have its shakes are creaks...

I could understand if the issue was, hey, there were some tower supports left off, or the platform was not on the boat, or there was not time to get the amps installed, but to suggest that any manufacturer would completely build a boat, install an entire interior, install all bells, whistles and options, but not install an integral part of the superstructure of the internal hull, just to get a boat to a show, is going full retard. The entire freaking boat would have to be torn down to go back and put internal support pieces in place. I'm not buying it.

That being said, I could care less anyway. I bet if you were to go up to most boats and do what these guys did, they would flex to a degree. We could settle this if someone would just film themselves shaking an x25 at a boatshow this weekend...

Ask ANYONE who has ridden in an X-25 if they shake on the water or ride rough. The X-25 is an incredibly stable and smooth riding boat. There are NO hull issues. This thread needs to end. It's just an attempt to make MC look bad when in fact we all know there is NOTHING wrong with the best selling hull in the MC line up. I'd bet most of the people trashing it haven't even ride in or behind one.

I rode in and behind one this past Dec. thought it was pretty nice wake and nice boat! It wasn't rough out and we didn't do dubs but it seemed solid to me. I'd prob buy one but don't like the seating arrangement or am not entirely sure it's potential to build a large wake and not be finicky. Oh and the $100k price tag isn't exactly appealing either!

i could understand if the issue was, hey, there were some tower supports left off, or the platform was not on the boat, or there was not time to get the amps installed, but to suggest that any manufacturer would completely build a boat, install an entire interior, install all bells, whistles and options, but not install an integral part of the superstructure of the internal hull, just to get a boat to a show, is going full retard. The entire freaking boat would have to be torn down to go back and put internal support pieces in place. I'm not buying it.

That being said, i could care less anyway. I bet if you were to go up to most boats and do what these guys did, they would flex to a degree. We could settle this if someone would just film themselves shaking an x25 at a boatshow this weekend...

It's a boat SHOW. Not a test drive or demo. Many boats at the show are thrown together just in time to display. Believe or don't. It happens.

Chat, if Mastercraft would completely design, assemble, and deliver the one 2012 Xstar in existence to the boat show, in advance of even having the bugs worked out for a production, then what makes you think that they wouldn't skip a structural component in one boat just to have something for the customer to walk around in and touch. It's not really a big deal in my opinion. Until someone mistakes an incomplete boat for finished product and starts a thread about it on the internet. :-)

CIE - the difference is that the X25 didn't just come out, and this particular X25 was obviously not the first prototype in existence. I understand what it takes to get ready for shows, and how, when time runs out, some corners are cut. I just don't buy the excuse as it relates to what is depicted in these videos. Plus, those are two different videos of two different boats. Are you suggesting that MC built two different boats without internal supports in the hull that happened to be at the same show?

C'mon man! Hahaha

I go back to my point that, who cares anyway? That is, until someone can confirm that other boats, shaken the same way, on the same type floor stands, don't flex as much, and then also, that there is some actual verifiable negative consequence of this amount of flex, when the MC's are used IN THE WATER.

CIE - the difference is that the X25 didn't just come out, and this particular X25 was obviously not the first prototype in existence. I understand what it takes to get ready for shows, and how, when time runs out, some corners are cut. I just don't buy the excuse as it relates to what is depicted in these videos. Plus, those are two different videos of two different boats. Are you suggesting that MC built two different boats without internal supports in the hull that happened to be at the same show?

C'mon man! Hahaha

The point was, that the boat models were not the prototype. The power tower was being shown off, before it was available on a boat. Due to the fact that MCs had always been 4 point towers, the boats were not built for a 2 point tower.

The "2 different videos", that you speak of, were done by the same person, on the same day, at the same boat show......

The point was, that the boat models were not the prototype. The power tower was being shown off, before it was available on a boat. Due to the fact that MCs had always been 4 point towers, the boats were not built for a 2 point tower.

The "2 different videos", that you speak of, were done by the same person, on the same day, at the same boat show......

This was done in 2011 right to I assume 2011 models. Wasn't the power tower or 2pt tower available even on 2010 models? And for sure on the 2011s?

This was done in 2011 right to I assume 2011 models. Wasn't the power tower or 2pt tower available even on 2010 models? And for sure on the 2011s?

2011 was the first year for 2 point towers, and only the ZFT5p. It was also very late to hit production boats. An early 2011 could only get the ZFT3.

2010 towers were only ZFT1, and ZFT3. Both were 4 point.
2011 was only ZFT3, until late production boats, which could get the ZFT5p
2012 was the ZFT2, and ZFT5p, until late production when the ZFT4 came out. All of which are 2 point.
2013 They introduced the ZFT0 (fixed 2 point), and offer the ZFT4, and ZFT5p as options still.

I couldn't resist...this video, while somewhat shocking, is just that. the boat is on a single block on the front and two on the rear with the running gear removed. this is done in order to bring the boat down to an eye level. shaking it on these blocks shows a "shake" or "flex" that is impossible to occur in normal operation. It is improperly supported. I doubt you would see even a quarter of that flex on the trailer or running across the lake. This entire thread is a moot point. BTW...I sell both MCs and CC's. They all do it on the three block setup. (regardless of brand/model) Hope this helps.